What was the thorn in Paul’s side?

[friend of]

Perhaps it did keep Paul from becoming to prideful.

I agree it did. My question is: if the thorn kept Paul from pride, why would Satan continue to aggravate Paul with the thorn, since doing so would benefit Paul by keeping him from pride? Why would Satan aid Paul like that?

 

[rockytopva]

Borrowing someone else’s interpretation… Paul speaks of a “thorn in the flesh” in 2 Corinthians 12:7. He calls it “a messenger of Satan” that had a purpose of “torment.” Many explanations have been put forward, but whether Paul is referring to a physical, spiritual, or emotional affliction—or something else entirely—has never been answered with satisfaction. Since he was not talking of a literal thorn, he must have been speaking metaphorically. Some of the more popular theories of the thorn’s interpretation include temptation, a chronic eye problem, malaria, migraines, epilepsy, and a speech disability. Some even say that the thorn refers to a person, such as Alexander the coppersmith, who did Paul “a great deal of harm” (2 Timothy 4:14). - What was Paul’s thorn in the flesh? | GotQuestions.org

 

[MatthewG]

I agree it did. My question is: if the thorn kept Paul from pride, why would Satan continue to aggravate Paul with the thorn, since doing so would benefit Paul by keeping him from pride? Why would Satan aid Paul like that?

That is a very good question friend of. You know, I haven’t check to see what any commenters may say on that Bible passage, it might be worth a look see.

My answer to the question is I don’t know, all I know is that Paul eventually overcame that once he had died and was resurrected into the heavenly Jerusalem, maybe we can ask him when we get there.

 

[quietthinker]

What was the thorn in Paul’s side?​

Sitting on the decks of those wooden boats probably got him a few splitters?

 

[DJT_47]

If Paul's thorn was an affliction that God allowed Satan to give him to keep him humble, then why would Satan continue to smart him with it when doing so would be to the benefit of Paul's soul?

See my post 75 above. It was no affliction since God's grace is not necessary for such medical issues, only sin. 2 Cor 12:8-9 says my grace is sufficient for thee after Paul said he sought the Lord three times on his issue.

 

[friend of]

See my post 75 above. It was no affliction since God's grace is not necessary for such medical issues, only sin. 2 Cor 12:8-9 says my grace is sufficient for thee after Paul said he sought the Lord three times on his issue.

If it wasn't an affliction, then why did Paul ask the Lord to remove it?

 

[DJT_47]

If it wasn't an affliction, then why did Paul ask the Lord to remove it?

1st, Grace is not required when you have a medical problem. Why? Because it was of a fleshly, worldly, sinful nature that obviously plagued Paul as do such now to many of us.

 

[Brakelite]

Strong sexual desire, lust. Some people say Paul's thorn was medical, but that can't be correct since such doesn't require God's grace. It's clear in Romans 7 as posted.

If you are nearly completely blind, can barely write and need a companion every where you go, and at the same time minister the gospel under persecution and privation, you need God's grace.

 

[The Learner]

No one else does either. But it was some kind of ongoing physical disability which Satan used against Paul to hinder him and his ministry. In this context "flesh" means body -- muscles and bones. So he might have been crippled, or his eyesight may have become weak, and either way a daily irritant.

2 Thessalonians 3:17
The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

The blindness of Saint Paul - PubMed

The Book of Acts in the Bible relates the story of St Paul's sudden blindness and subsequent recovery of vision. St Paul was walking along when he saw a bright light; he fell down and awoke blind. He remained blind for three days, at which time his vision returned from a "laying on of hands."...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"We do not know exactly what the affliction was that Paul called his “thorn in the flesh.” It probably was a physical malady. There is some evidence in Scripture that Paul had an eye problem. He spoke of the large letters he used in writing to the Galatians (Galatians 6:11). He also declared that the Galatians would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him (Galatians 4:13-15). Some have suggested that this may have been a chronic eye disease or an injury suffered when he was stoned in Lystra (Acts 14:19,20)." What Was Paul’s “Thorn”?

What was Paul's thorn in the flesh?

No one knows for sure what Paul's thorn in the flesh was. There have been various theories, such as a chronic sickness and bad eyesight.

carm.org

Paul's Thorn in the Flesh - Study Resources

Paul's Thorn in the Flesh 'It...was to keep Paul from conceit on account of his visions and revelations which otherwise may have given him a reason to boast.'

www.blueletterbible.org

“Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.” Galatians 4:15

"
Yes, God’s servants often battle physical ailments, handicaps, sicknesses!

Job’s breath stank! (See both Job 17:1 and again in Job 19:17.)

Jacob had a limp! (See Genesis 32:31.)"

GALATIANS … PAUL’S EYES!

drmikebagwell.org

Gal 6:11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!

 

[The Learner]

I once heard that it was being attacked by demons like Satan attacted Job. I still think on Galations it was an eye problem.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Perhaps it did keep Paul from becoming to prideful.

What a mystery! Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I’ve always thought is was pride …whatever the thorn was…that Paul may be found having not his own righteousness but the righteousness which comes from God in Christ. When I think of an irritating stake in the flesh …I think of something that keeps the flesh “irritated”
weak that the power of healing be of God and not of men.

Interesting to me is where Paul asked “where is the blessed Hope you spoke of? Willing to pluck even your own eyes out and give them to me?”… “now I’ve become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” My question is when Paul wasn’t an enemy and they were willing to pluck out their eyes for him…was he telling them a lie? Why the change at now …this behavior of “am I now become an enemy” because of truth and not a lie? What is Paul telling them that makes him now an enemy to them?

If I think of Paul’s thorn in the flesh
The words “unless I should be exalted above measure” I think of “who are kept by the power of God through Faith unto salvation…” what is “Faith unto Salvation” in relation to “a thorn given unto me” where God said “My strength is made perfect in weakness.”?
Faith …unto…Salvation to me describes: deliverance out from, of Gods appearance of deliverance by His saving Power… what ever Paul’s thorn was; to me it is helping because I also desperately right now feel like I have nothing left but weakness. I can relate to the Psalms; prayers of the afflicted who are overwhelmed and pour out their complaints before the Lord. Always, always crying for delivery. There has to come a time (I would think) when the tears are wiped away?

Faith unto a Hope of delivery unto Salvation …kept by the power of God “to be revealed at last” ….makes me think of Paul’s thorn “kept” him unless he be lifted above measure so that …instead… Faith unto Salvation. When God said three times He would not remove the thorn …does that mean God left Paul that way “with a thorn”?…or that God alone would “remove the thorn” …three times He said…that is to say God would “remove the flesh” “the foreskin of the heart” through “the circumcision of Christ Jesus”, Faith unto Salvation in Jesus Christ Alone. Where did Paul’s thorn go with the circumcision of Christ Jesus?

Gods strength is made perfect in weakness. “Though He (Jesus Christ) was crucified in weakness; He Lives by the Power of God.”

Wouldn’t that be the “blessed hope”? The “appearance of Jesus Christ” “the Revelation of Jesus Christ”? Why did Paul challenge “where is that blessed Hope you spoke of”? …”where has that blessed hope gone …where you would have given …to now you hate me?” To me it is Love. So foreign.
Is
when His body is weak it “edifies itself”
in the bond of Love which is Gods’ perfection made perfect (edified; strengthened) and in Love. as the word says of those who: Love His appearing and Hope and wait (watch) for it.

I’m depressed because I’m stuck at crying also: where is the blessed hope the church speaks of? Wheres the Deliverance …I’m afraid it is all just a fairytale. Something spoken of —sounding out something so much better and substantial (solid and stable to grab hold of) where I want to believe or have faith in weakness or thorns or sorrows …but I’m struggling to see Joy at all or the deliverance of faith unto Salvation. my greatest most depressing fear would be that God is fictional made up —or designed—by men with all their opinions and imaginations of so many differing versions of “God”. It makes me think of: let God be real and every man be a liar. I can relate to that because …right now to me… “let God be real” is everything. The only Hope there is….even if everything else is a lie, including what I believe or tell myself. If God be real … THAT makes depression seem like nothing …as in not ALL Hope has left…because there is still Joy in that He is True.

1 Peter 1:5-7

 

[DJT_47]

If it wasn't an affliction, then why did Paul ask the Lord to remove it?

By affliction I mean a medical issue like cancer, leprosy, heart issues, etc.

 

[DJT_47]

If you are nearly completely blind, can barely write and need a companion every where you go, and at the same time minister the gospel under persecution and privation, you need God's grace.

You are taking this subject out of the original context. It's not general things as you've mentioned, but a single, very specific thing and Paul asked the Lord three times to remove it from him. Look up the word grace also which equates to clemency, leniency, unmerited gift, forgiveness, etc all of which don't relate to the removal of a medical issue or the things you've randomly mentioned. The Romans 7 citing is a specific thing which would require God's grace as bring sufficient.

 

[Brakelite]

You are taking this subject out of the original context. It's not general things as you've mentioned, but a single, very specific thing and Paul asked the Lord three times to remove it from him. Look up the word grace also which equates to clemency, leniency, unmerited gift, forgiveness, etc all of which don't relate to the removal of a medical issue or the things you've randomly mentioned. The Romans 7 citing is a specific thing which would require God's grace as bring sufficient.

Romans 7 is a description of an unconverted man. Seeking maybe, attending the synagogue regularly like Nicodemus, but unconverted nevertheless. No converted born again Christian and filled with the Spirit of God should be having the problems as described in Romans 7. The person described therein is living in defeat and in slavery to sin and the flesh. That is not the life of a Christian.
As far as grace is concerned, the fact that you are breathing at all, you have health and the ability to reason and communicate, is a result of grace. That Paul could still minister with such power and insight, despite his handicap, was an act of grace.

 

[quietthinker]

Romans 7 is a description of an unconverted man. Seeking maybe, attending the synagogue regularly like Nicodemus, but unconverted nevertheless. No converted born again Christian and filled with the Spirit of God should be having the problems as described in Romans 7. The person described therein is living in defeat and in slavery to sin and the flesh. That is not the life of a Christian.
As far as grace is concerned, the fact that you are breathing at all, you have health and the ability to reason and communicate, is a result of grace. That Paul could still minister with such power and insight, despite his handicap, was an act of grace.

Do you think the unconverted man would love the Law of God? I am bouncing off your opening statement ' Romans 7 is a description of an unconverted man.'

 

[DJT_47]

Romans 7 is a description of an unconverted man. Seeking maybe, attending the synagogue regularly like Nicodemus, but unconverted nevertheless. No converted born again Christian and filled with the Spirit of God should be having the problems as described in Romans 7. The person described therein is living in defeat and in slavery to sin and the flesh. That is not the life of a Christian.
As far as grace is concerned, the fact that you are breathing at all, you have health and the ability to reason and communicate, is a result of grace. That Paul could still minister with such power and insight, despite his handicap, was an act of grace.

It's Paul describing himself not some other person. He uses 1st person singular: I and me.

 

[Brakelite]

Do you think the unconverted man would love the Law of God? I am bouncing off your opening statement ' Romans 7 is a description of an unconverted man.'

Nicodemus. Member of the religious elite. A Pharisee just like Paul. Loved the law. Saw his obedience to the law as the means by which to be saved. Considered himself am example and mentor to society. And was unconverted.

 

[Brakelite]

It's Paul describing himself not some other person. He uses 1st person singular: I and me.

No argument with that. Describing his testimony as an unconverted religious Pharisee and bigot, loved his religion and the law it was based on, yet recognized, despite his zealousness, that he wasn't meeting it's high standards. He was, like Nicodemus, unconverted.

 

[quietthinker]

Nicodemus. Member of the religious elite. A Pharisee just like Paul. Loved the law. Saw his obedience to the law as the means by which to be saved. Considered himself am example and mentor to society. And was unconverted.

I s'pose the motive for being in line with it is a factor. In any case, I've considered Romans 7 to be the brutal honesty of a converted man not the musings of the unconverted....as it follows consistently with Romans 8

 

[friend of]

No argument with that. Describing his testimony as an unconverted religious Pharisee and bigot, loved his religion and the law it was based on, yet recognized, despite his zealousness, that he wasn't meeting it's high standards. He was, like Nicodemus, unconverted.

I don't know Brakelite. Romans 7:24 sounds pretty "present tense" to me.